Well, I can't say I'm surprised, although I am saddened by this news that South Africa's young democracy might be going the way of the Do-do pretty soon.
South Africa's promise was enshrined in the new constitution adopted in 1996 with enlightened provisions regarding transparency, accountability, and constitutional checks and balances. But the ANC's hegemony is close to absolute and with that comes the usual perils of absolute power.Under President Thabo Mbeki there has been a concentration of power in the office of the presidency to enhance the delivery of service and stamp out corruption. However, in a country as new to democracy as South Africa, there is a fine line between the point at which the concentration of power begins to disenfranchise rather than empower the people.
The electoral system of proportional representation means that the first loyalty of members of parliament is to the party, not the public. Voters vote for parties, not individuals. As a result, the African masses, who were excluded from electoral representation during apartheid, are still powerless in many respects. They have the right to a non-racial franchise for which the struggle was fought but, paradoxically, little room to choose.
The ANC enjoys a 70 percent majority in parliament, more than enough to amend the constitution at will. It rubber-stamps the wishes of the executive and exercises little oversight. Having chafed at suggestions that it might use its huge majority to amend the constitution that was so painstakingly negotiated in 1994 and finalized in 1996, ANC parliament members have amended the constitution 12 times in the past eight years.
We should thank our lucky stars every day--nay, every HOUR of every day--that we still live in a country in which there is enough difference of opinion (some call it a "division" I call it a safety net) to keep either of our two most powerful parties from enjoying such an absolute majority that we would lose our freedoms.
[Quick, mark the hour and the day...It's not often you'll see me express appreciation for the dark side!]
Powerline has an excellent interview culled from C-Span that pretty clearly explains exactly who DOES run security at our ports (and coming into them) and who doesn't.
Here's the most important point:
HOST: Jayson Ahern, explain for us what you think are maybe myths out there in the public or misperceptions or misconceptions that they have.[Emphasis mine]AHERN: Sure, I think a couple of things. First in the last couple of weeks with the Dubai Ports World transaction here in the United States, one of the things I've seen consistently misrepresented is that this foreign company was going to come in and take over ports and port security. First off, that's not true. Port authorities are still run by state and local and county governments consistent with standards set forth by the United States Coast Guard, and also the companies that would be involved with this transaction are actually purchasing another foreign company that actually runs or leases a terminal within that port. So I think that's one of the first distinctions is making sure that the public understands this is not a foreign company coming in and taking over the United States' ports or running a port or setting security standards. They're merely coming in to lease a terminal within that port, which is just one of the facilities that operates within a port.
It never ceases to amaze me how deeply in denial our politicians are. They haven't yet figured out that the best thing about the blogosphere is its ability to keep them from passing bullshit off as FACT. Sure, we may not all be sitting home watching C-Span all day, but we have places like Powerline to keep us informed about what went on there anyway.
Perhaps it would be wise for our elected representatives to stop dipping the ladle into their own Kool-Aid long enough to realize that--despite their best efforts--we are not as stupid as the public schools they've ruined tried to make us!
Am I the only one who's noticed the irony of the DPW hupla?
We now have the same people who gasp in horror at the mere suggestion that we ought to racially profile people on the subways and buses and airplanes doing exactly that with an entire country. Not just any country either, but the UAE, the one arab nation that has been something resembling an ally in this "War on Terror" thing.
UAE hosts more of our war ships than any other foreign nation. To date, zero attacks.
UAE allows us to use their airspace and landing strips. To date, zero attacks. We're more worried about our planes taking off from JFK getting hit by seagulls than we are about our planes taking off from UAE.
UAE also seized the assets of terrorists immediately after 9/11, without much fuss or equivocation.
True, their banks laundered some money that belonged to the terrorists, but I'd be willing to bet the German, French, and Swiss banks did the same. Atta lived in Hamburg prior to the attacks, why not blame the Germans and not allow them to own anything in our country either?
My point simply is this: Whatever our concerns with port security (and there are many that are legit), they ought to have come to the forefront without this as a catalyst, and this deal should not be the source of the concern.
Wanna be worried? Be worried about the fact that fewer than 5% of containers coming here are inspected, by our own Coast Guard! Be worried about the fact that the Communist Chinese (not exactly our bosom buddies after all) are--and have been for some time now--running the port of Long Beach. Be worried that there aren't American companies to do the job of running operations (which is fancy language for owning the lease on the ports, nothing much else) so if Hillary gets her way and legislation were to go through prohibiting foreign ownership of our port operations, we'd be in quite a pickle with no goods coming in or out of most of them.
I also find it ironic that the very same people who--just a couple of weeks ago mind you--were ranting and raving about the theory (preposterous though it was) that Cheney PURPOSELY shot his poor buddy to get the bad news of Iran, the war in Iraq, etc... off the front pages are now sinking their teeth into this thing? The same people who said "All we have to fear is fear itself," who accused the administration of keeping us terrified at all times of an enemy that doesn't really exist, the ones who claim the "War on Terror" isn't really a war, but just a small group of fringe extremists having a bad day (or year or decade or century or whatever...) are now acting like a business transaction is the scariest thing in the universe for us because it has A-RABS involved (egads)!
The whole thing is SICKENING. The Dems will get a lot of mileage out of this one though because the Republicans--not wanting to be outdone, and for no other reason than saving face mind you--are joining the rallying cry. This really highlights how corrupt and out for themselves they ALL are, on both sides of the aisle.
I'm not that worried about this deal honestly. I don't think it makes us any less safe than the Chinese are making us. In fact, we could squish the UAE like a bug if they had the balls to try to allow anything to happen through one of the ports they manage. China? Not so much.
I hate to sound like a friend to big bidniss and all, but the scary thing is the way our politicians are behaving and the way the media isn't questioning THEM enough, not the ports deal. If the politicos cared about our safety, the Coast Guard would be recruiting at every college in this country, they'd have more money for more ships to do more inspections, and other nations from whence our cargo comes would know in no uncertain terms that if they did not adequately inspect enough cargo to satisfy us, well, we'd tax the crap out of their goods so it would sit on the docks and rot instead of sell to our people.
But hey, what the heck do I know?
I'm giving it two weeks. Things will either calm down, or blow into full-scale civil war by then (I'm guessing the latter).
What should we do?
Pull back to the Kurdish line and protect those guys like our lives depend on it. Let them kill themselves otherwise and plan on the Shiites winning and having an even BIGGER Iran to worry about.
I think I have it all figured out--the reason the Democrats and White House Press Corps. are focusing so much attention on the precise number of buckshot pellets in Whittington's heart--it's all part of their Grand Master Plan to regain power!
Hear me out, it makes perfect sense when you consider the following undeniable FACT:
THEY HAVE NO PLANS OR IDEAS OF THEIR OWN, NO AGENDA, NOTHING POSITIVE TO CONTRIBUTE
In fact, when you ask them what their plan is for this or that (doing better in Iraq, securing our borders, saving Social Security, etc...), they say "Well, we'll consult with the experts once we're back in power and they'll tell us what to do."
No. I am not exaggerating. This exact quote came out of the mouth of the human Chihuaha himself, James Carville on the O'Reilly Factor last night. If I didn't hear it with my own ears, I wouldn't believe it either. How can someone be so clueless as to think that the (voting) American public is gonna buy that as a "plan?"
Anyway, back to my point...
The reason we're hearing SO much more about something as un-scary as Dick Cheney hunting quail is that they have no plan to save us from something as truly scary as a terrorist with a BOMB. In fact, they know that if they allow us to become aware of the truly scary problems we face (Iran with nukes, for example), we'll probably re-elect Republicans. That's because--love 'em or hate 'em domestically--the Republicans at least consider things like Iranians with nuclear weapons and terrorists with access to them "terrifying" and not merely "concerning" or "challenging" as I've heard some Democrats describe them.
This is why we've heard folks like Hillary Clinton already quoting FDR's famous line "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I'm quite sure she's dusted off the footage already for her own campaign commercials. Her plan, and the plan of her party, is to convince us that they will un-scare us. They will downplay everything--burying the scary stuff underneath mountains of crap like the Cheney hunting story--so that we can remain blissfully ignorant to the dangers we face from abroad so they can get back to harping on the problems we face here at home.
It matters not that their solution to those is more and higher taxes for us. All that matters are the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren, right? Never mind that their real solution to the problems facing our chiiiiiiildren (like lousy public education, lack of healthcare, obesity and an insolvent Social Security Administration) is to abort our kids before they are born. We're not supposed to pay attention to anything but the mean and nasty way the Bush administration has "scared" us into voting for Republicans.
But check out the mixed messages they send. On the one hand, they say we shouldn't fall for the scare tactics used by the Bush administration to terrify us into voting for GOP candidates. On the other they tell us we should toss out the Bushies because they haven't done enough to protect us. From what? I thought we weren't at war? I thought we were supposed to be "suspicious" of such a "secretive" administration that just wants to "scare" us into the voting booth?
Ask them why we haven't been attacked at home in almost 5 years: "Luck." (i.e., be afraid, be very very afraid because luck will run out)
Ask them why it is that UBL hasn't been caught: "Incompetence on the part of the administration." (So the guys with the night vision goggles on are incompetent too? I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear that news and to be led by people who so obviously think so).
Ask them why it is that Islamomaniacs are rioting and killing and destroying property all over the world: "Insensitivity to their faith." (But the lack of such violent responses by Christians and Jews to even more heinous "insensitivity" to their faiths and to the very fact that they live and breathe at all is what exactly? Luck again??)
No mixed messages there!
But that's how they work. The Democrats try messages on for size, then take a poll. Today they are working with the "be UN-afraid" angle. If we get attacked, or if something bad happens in the war that makes front page news it will switch to: "be very afraid of the incompetence of the Republicans!"
And what they're expecting (because they think they know what's best for us, being that they are soooo much smarter than we are and all) is that we're so dumb we'll forget what they said the day before, or the week before or whenever it was that they were talking out of the other side of their mouths.
The really sick thing isn't that the party is doing this, it's that they are helped along (perhaps even LED along) by the MSM. It's not a conspiracy "theory" of mine, it's reality. The press is keeping this Cheney story alive, not Joe and Jane Average. Practically every person I know is saying "ENOUGH ALREADY!"
But the media keeps on churning this shit out, even as Iran continues to arm itself, Hamas continues to make outlandish demands and the UN continues to ignore all of it.
The irony of course is that by continuing to shriek at us from the podium and the news desk that the GOP is too "secretive" they are themselves TRYING TO SCARE US! It's just that they're hoping we'll be more afraid of being lied to than being blow to bits. Kinda funny coming from the party that told us it was "no big deal really" that Clinton lied UNDER OATH, never mind to the people he was elected to serve!
I dunno about you all, but I'm more "scared" of people who want to keep the REAL news "secret" than I am of a VP who delays the release of a story that has NO BEARING ON MY FRIGGIN' LIFE WHATSOEVER.
Or as some wise (and clever) person said: "I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy".
I'm going to be sick. No kidding around here, I'm going to puke right here at my desk.
Read this and you'll know why.
A female employee was told that her pregnancy was costing her company too much money and that it would pay for her to have an abortion. It's an extreme example, but advocates say the workplace is still tough on pregnant women.
But nooooooo...Far be it for the "choice" crowd to cast any aspersions on the "benefits" of abortion.
I recently saw a bumper sticker that read: "All Mothers are Working Mothers!"
This is going to be my new battle cry, my bumper sticker (well, if I were the bumper sticker type, which I'm not...)!
I am sick and tired of being sick and tired, and I now realize that a lot of it was my own damn fault! On a lark, I bought and read this book. It was Valentine's Day, and my husband had been complaining about my complaining (I was doing way too much of it lately) and I thought I'd read it as a "gift" to him. I admit it, I thought it was a joke, that it would shut him up but not much more. How wrong I was because the person it shamed--the person it shut right up was ME.
I was buying into the bullshit perpetrated by the so-called "womens' libbers" that being a housewife is NOT a job, that I'm supposed to be out building a career, being all that a man can be, blah blah blah, and that to do any less is to sell-out, give up and become frumpy, stupid and dull. I mean, I never said out loud "I'm frumpy dull and not contributing to society," but I think deep down I felt that way, and the net effect was that I found myself complaining a LOT about the job I do have--being a stay-at-home and full time mommy and wife--just to make it seem harder than it actually is (and therfore somehow more "worthy" of respect).
I'm hereby OUTING myself for the fraud that I was. It's all crap, the whole thing. Yes, being a mom and wife is the hardest job I've ever had in some ways, but they are emotional ways, not physical really. I've resigned myself to the fact that my heart is walking around outside my body from now on, and it's scary, but let's face it, other than that, my life is pretty cushy. Let's take inventory shall we:
So what made me "invent" drama, trauma and chaos in my life? Peer pressure. The very thing I'm going to bust my hump to help my daughters avoid got me, and it got me good. Women don't really care about each other--not as a group anyway. Sure, women individually can be awesome, soul sisters, the best of friends, but as a collective? WE ARE BITCHES.
C'mon girls (and guys) you know I'm right. Groups of us (not including me, but whatever...) fight for "a woman's right to 'choose'" but when it comes to women who "choose" to stay home and raise their families and keep their homes and husbands happy? Ick, that's not a "choice," that's something to scoff at. We hear these same crusaders for "choice" mock women like me and use the (admit it, it's true) derisive term "soccer mom" to describe me. I'm a voting block, a demographic, but one that lobbyists and advertisers and program directors LAUGH AT, and saldy, the group doing the most laughing is often other women!
When's the last time you heard Hillary Clinton turn her shrill voice to the subject of my rights? When did she push an agenda that included getting tax credit for stay-at-home-moms, women who have "chosen" to do the job of raising their children themselves and NOT leaving it to the "village" Hillary imagines still exists (newsflash Hill, it doesn't)?
Do Senator Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and the other full-time bitches in Washington really "care" about women, REAL WOMEN, or do they just take us for granted the same way they take the black community for granted? Do they think that because we once were girls risking pregnancy every weekend in the backseat of our boyfriends' cars that we'll get behind their political agenda for us--that all that matters is the ability to kill a fetus, anytime, anyplace? What happens when we're married and actually KEEPING our babies? Do we cease to count?
Tax breaks for people like me are just the beginning of what's missing. What about Social Security? Are they OK with the "choice" I have to inherit my husband's share if he pre-deceases me, and that's that? Oh sure, I did work for a little while, and according to Social Security--if they are still solvent when I'm of age to collect (a dubious prospect at best)--I'll stand to get somewhere in the vacinity of $20K per year. Gee, if you factor in inflation, that means I'll be able to live in a cardboard box under the railroad tracks eating the stuff I can fish out of the trash. Yippee for me. That's the gratitude my nation will have for my "choosing" to raise decent, God-fearing, polite, educated law-abiding TAX PAYING, contributing members of our society. Nice, real nice.
It's about time that more of us stepped up and admitted that our lives ROCK! That we are LUCKY to be able to do what we do, that it IS valuable, and IS a major contribution. No, it's not curing cancer, but perhaps it's raising the person who someday WILL cure cancer. At the very least, it's a viable and valualbe CHOICE, and shame on me for allowing myself to be so convinced otherwise--by women I don't even like or respect no less--that I walked around bitching and moaning and nagging and--most importantly--WASTING the time the good Lord gave me these past three years.
From this point forward gentle reader, I am a HAPPY HOUSEWIFE and damn proud of it!
I kid you not, a customer service rep at my credit card company just uttered that "word" on the phone with me. There was a mistake on my statement, and she took care of it for me, and by way of reassurance, told me that she had "gone ahead and correctified the problem."
Lord help us...
OK, according to Edward Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, it WOULD be possible to disable Iran's nuclear program militarily, and in a single night no less!
Shit, we went into Iraq on the "theory" that WMD of the non-nuclear variety "could" be present, and that Saddam "could" still have a nuclear program hidden somewhere, just waiting for us to lift sanctions so he could continue it, so what's the hold-up with Iran???
Here's a country that not only has nuclear ambitions, they have ANNOUNCED their intentions openly, kicked out the IAEA, threatened Israel and the US (the whole world actually) and we're sitting here biting our fingernails doing nothing but "warning" them and calling it "diplomacy."
Why give them any warning? Did we learn nothing from Saddam? You don't "warn" people like this, you take them at their word and then quietly go about the business of gassing up the bombers!
I realize there are those who'd argue that taking out Iraq's nuclear reactor was easier because there was only one (as compared to Iran's 100+ installations that constitute their entire program), but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Yes, Iraq's weapon program of 1981 was stopped by a single air strike carried out by less than a squadron of fighter-bombers because it was centered in a single large reactor building. Once it was destroyed, the mission was accomplished. To do the same to Iran's 100-odd facilities would require almost a hundred times as many sorties as the Israelis flew in 1981, which would strain even the U.S. Air Force. Some would even add many more sorties to carry out a preliminary suppression campaign against Iran's air defenses (a collection of inoperable anti-aircraft weapons and obsolete fighters with outdated missiles). But the claim that to stop Iran's program all of its nuclear sites must be destroyed is simply wrong.An air attack is not a Las Vegas demolitions contract, where nothing must be left but well-flattened ground for the new casino to be built. Iran might need 100 buildings in good working order to make its bomb, but it is enough to demolish a few critical installations to delay its program for years -- and perhaps longer because it would become harder or impossible for Iran to buy the materials it bought when its efforts were still secret. Some of these installations may be thickly protected against air attack, but it seems that their architecture has not kept up with the performance of the latest penetration bombs.
Nor could destroyed items be easily replaced by domestic production. In spite of all the claims of technological self-sufficiency by its engineer-president, not even metal parts of any complexity can be successfully machined in Iran. More than 35% of Iran's gasoline must now be imported because the capacity of its foreign-built refineries cannot be expanded without components currently under U.S. embargo, and which the locals cannot copy. Aircraft regularly fall out of the sky because Iranians are unable to reverse-engineer spare parts.
The bombing of Iran's nuclear installations may still be a bad idea for other reasons, but not because it would require a huge air offensive. On the contrary, it could all be done in a single night. One may hope that Iran's rulers will therefore accept a diplomatic solution rather than gamble all on wildly exaggerated calculations.
I'm also not all that interested in finding out what life would be like (literally overnight) with one-third less oil to go around to the economies of the world that need it (ours in particular).
I have no idea what the administration's strategy is right now, but I sure hope they listen to guys like John McCain who said--very clearly and audibly--that he would not take the military option off the table. Why we would go to war in Iraq but NOT in Iran at this point is simply beyond my comprehension. It may not be a popular thing to say, but there it is.
Damian Penny some of the best comebacks I've read lately to six of the most irritating sentences we've been hearing from the lefty apologists for muslim insanity (many thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link).
Six sentences I'm getting very, very sick of hearing
1. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can insult people's most cherished beliefs." Actually, that's precisely what "freedom of speech" means. If only the most inoffensive opinions are protected, what's the point?2. "We have decided not to publish the cartoons out of respect for Islam." What do you call a newspaper that won't show images that might offend religious extremists? Highlights for Children. As Paul Canniff said about comments by pro-censorship punk-rocker Warren Kinsella, this is just an attempt to buy cheap fatwa insurance.
3. "You Christians always go nuts when something like "Piss-Christ" turns up, but you expect Muslims to just quietly accept this gross insult to their faith." Curiously, you never hear people who make this argument suggest that, say, Martin Scorcese was "asking for it" because he should have known people would find The Last Temptation of Christ offensive.
4. "You never see the Pope or Jews caricatured and insulted in this manner." This argument is usually made by people who simultaneously make argument no. 3. Whatever their virtues, a finely tuned sense of irony is not one of them.
5. "The cartoons were crude and disgusting, and never should have been published in a newspaper." Some of the cartoons, especially the much-talked-about one showing Muhammed's turban as a bomb, were certainly provocative - but they were no worse than what regularly gets published in the Western media. (Certainly, compared with the work of psychopath Steve Bell in The Guardian, they were downright restrained.) What's "crude" about showing a terrified artist, fearful of religious fanatics ready to break down his door and slash his throat, just for drawing a picture of a historical figure? Don't we have a right - nay, a duty - to satirize the phenomenon of religious fanatics blowing themselves up in crowds of civilians so they can collect eternal nookie?
6. "These cartoons are just like the ones the Nazis used to publish about Jews." No, actually, these are.
Go check them out at Damian's site too, they are chock full of links, too many to repost here.
Way to go Queen Margarethe of Denmark!
...in overtly political passages from an official biography published yesterday Queen Margrethe makes comments certain to complicate her nation's relationship with Muslims.She said: "We are being challenged by Islam these years--globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.
"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."
"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."
Just talking to my Dad on the phone, and one of his friends--who does a lot of work for a group in Norway--says that the upside (if there is one) of these "DEMONstrations" by the Muslim barbarian horde is that their immigration policy (and that of the Danes, and the Swedes and if they have any brains, the French too) will finally be reformed to exclude entry to any more of these freaks.
He pointed out the irony that the Europeans--Northern European countries in particular--have been the most supportive (financially and politically) of the Arab perspective vs. the US and Israel in particular. My guess is that they've been so supportive for two reasons:
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
And here's the other good news. We have a chance to sit back on the sidelines of this clusterfuck to watch and learn, watch and learn. Think we can appease these maniacs? Turn on your TV and take a look at what "appeasement" hath wrought in France and Denmark. Think we can just sit out the fight totally? Tell that to the Austrians whose consulate was demolished right alongside that of the Danish just because it was there! Think there are "moderate" Muslims (or if these mythical creatures exist, that they have one shred of power)? Why is their outcry about as loud as the crickets in my yard?
Will we learn? I hope so, I sure hope so.
DEMONSTRATORS?! Are you fucking kidding me?!!!
(CNN) -- Islamic anger over newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed continues to spread internationally, with protesters torching the Danish consulate in Beirut.Wielding sticks and stones, the demonstrators ransacked the building on Sunday, smashing its windows.
OK, just so we're clear. I wouldn't want to confuse the Muslim reaction to a bunch of DRAWINGS with the tyrannical violence and vandalism of the Nazi Thugs on Kristallnacht or anything...And I sure wouldn't want to compare it with the reaction of the black Los Angeleans who were "offended" at the Rodney King verdict...And heaven help me if I happened to be reminded of the way racist Southerners burned black churches and businesses and lynched black citizens because they were "offended" by desegregation.
No, this is not the same thing at all! This is merely a "demonstration" of Muslim "anger." They have nothing against free speech, that is as long as it's speech they agree with. If not, well, they're offended and if you were the one speaking, expect your house, place of worship or business to be "demonstrated" to the ground--with or without you inside of it!
Excuse my sarcasm, (nah don't) but I'm am sick to death of the world giving a pass to these freaks. I am 100% sure if they were Christian or Jewish, the entire world would not only be calling them by their proper names (thugs, murderers, terrorists, barbarians, mindless fucks...), they would be calling their collective behavior by its proper name: ACTS OF WAR.
That's what this is folks, just another series of battles in the war of civilizations. We aren't waiting for it to begin, or working to prevent it from happening, we are in it, full on right now. Just because we refuse to accept it, and allow our media to continue to euphemize--granting these monsters humanity they do NOT deserve--doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Is it fear? Do we have some massive case of Stocholm Syndrome? Do we really believe the inane ramblings of the anti-war crowd--that if we leave them alone they'll leave us alone? Really? Where were these "offensive" cartoons published? Were they printed up and plastered all over buildings in Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon? NO. They were published in the native tongues of WESTERN countries in WESTERN publications! These are the same publications that have--on occasion--depicted George Bush as a rambunctious chimp, Ariel Sharon as a Nazi and Jesus as so many offensive characters I don't have time to list them all here. I didn't happen to hear about mass violence by Americans, Jews or Christians on any of those occasions, did you? So what gives these Muslims the right to vent their outrage by destroying private property? Why aren't they being rounded up, arrested and tried as the criminals they are? Even we arrested as many LA rioters as we could, what the fuck gives?
No, instead, "rescue workers" come to the aid of the "demonstrators" who are injured while climbing into broken windows of buildings they've ransacked. And newspaper publishers are firing editors who allowed these cartoons to be printed. So much for free speech.
Muslims don't need armies or bombs to defeat us, they already have a much more powerful weapon than those: OUR OWN SPINELESSNESS. Our willingness to toss our freedoms away with both hands will be our demise, not some guy in a bomb vest. The way they work is insidious. They infiltrate our countries using immigration--usually legal by the way. Then they build their mosques, send out their recruiters to our prisons (they know where to look for the "best" and "brightest" monsters around), then get involved in our political process using our vocabulary against us.
Case in point, right here in the US of A, in my old hometown of Boston, the Islamic Society of Boston has filed suit against, well, everyone pretty much, simply because the Boston Herald printed reports that some associated with the ISB and a new mosque being built by them with terrorism. All the Herald did was report news, the ISB is calling it "libel" and now the courts will decide if freedom of the press has a future in our country. The irony of course is that they are using our laws, our freedoms as a weapon in the war against those very freedoms.
And we're not doing a damn thing to stop them.
Wake up America. The enemy is right here, and no, they won't leave us alone if we leave them alone. They have "demonstrated" that their aim is to destroy us. Perhaps we should stop apologizing to them long enough to notice.
I might not have put it this way, but Banagor pretty much sums up how I feel about what's been going on lately with the so-called "offensive" cartoons about Muhammed:
What amazes me even more is that some Westerners are angry that we have offended Muslims, as if they truly are worshippers of a"religion of peace." Isn't it incredible that every time these "peaceful" Muslims are offended, more people die as a result? When was the last time that Christians started blowing up airliners full of passengers because they were offended by the trash piece of artwork"Piss Christ"? When was the last time that Jews started blowing up busses full of civilians because the Arab press is chock-full of anti-Semitic works every single fucking day of the year?
Good questions all. Too bad we're not asking them more often!
Oh, and by the way, couldn't it be construed an "act of war" to torch foreign embassies given that they are considered sovereign territory belonging to the states they represent?
Another good question in need of a good answer.
I've been trying to articulate what bothered me exactly about what Bush said in the SOTU speech about the state of education in this country, and then I read what the Weekend Pundit had to say on the subject and it hit me: The man has TOTALLY abandoned vouchers!
The President talked up boosting education. That's great. It's something we need to do. But if it means making school class sizes even smaller, he's barking up the wrong tree. We've already reached the point of diminishing returns in regards to class size. What we really need to do is break the stranglehold the education lobby has on our children's education, the same lobby that says “We need even more money in order to adequately educate your kids.” Better that we find more efficient ways to spend our education dollars, like school vouchers.
Hang on a sec...Didn't I vote for the guy--not once, but TWICE--because he supported giving Americans a real choice in education? Didn't I think he really truly cared about this issue? How did I miss this?
Well, at least I now live in a city with so many "choices" in public education (tons of magnet schools and charter schools) that I can delude myself into feeling I'm not stuck choosing between the school I'm zoned for and private school.
But still...This problem isn't going away, and if the Dems do regain power in the Congress, we can consider the issue dead and buried probably for good.
Get a load of this!
BOSTON (AP) -- Boston University won final federal approval Thursday for a controversial plan to build a research laboratory in the city's South End that would handle some of the world's most dangerous and exotic germs.The decision by the National Institutes of Health secures $128 million in federal funding for the lab, which will be part of a national group of facilities that will study infectious diseases such as ebola and the West Nile virus.
University officials said the lab will be safe and will provide needed research into contagious illnesses and the risk they might pose in the hands of bioterrorists.
But opponents have criticized the decision to build the lab in a densely populated urban neighborhood.
The controversy escalated in 2004, when three workers at another BU lab became sick after they were exposed to a highly infectious strain of tularemia, or rabbit fever. They recovered.
Well at least germs don't kill people, people kill...oh wait, germs do kill people. Oops!
OK, everyone else does it on Oprah, why can't I do it here?
I have some shit to get off my chest--some "guilt" that has been eating away at me, and some "issues" (no one has problems anymore after all) I need help resolving. Maybe some of you can help?
Confessions...
- I let my child watch too much TV. Yes, it's true. I said I'd never let her watch before the age of 3--studies showing how damaging it is to tiny forming minds and all--but I can't help myself. Nursing a new infant and having a husband with (still--the move didn't change a thing in this department) who works insane amounts, leaves me exhausted and unimaginative. She's very good at entertaining herself 90% of the time, but there's those two hours before supper but after nap that confound me. When the weather is nice, I try to take her outside, but until it stays light later, it's a lot of work for not a lot of time. We have no yard and so we end up playing inside. When that gets too crazy, or when I need to prepare dinner, clean up after the day, do some laundry or nurse the baby, I end up plopping her in front of DVR'd Blue's Clues and Sesame Street. I rationalize that it's "educational' and has no commercials, but who am I kidding? It's still crap, still passive, still not what I should be doing with her.
- I say I have "no time" to exercise, but the truth is I choose to do other things besides exercising. In this case, CLEAN. I'm addicted to a clean house. For some reason, I can't give in to the idea of "lowering my standards" now that I have kids so I can take some time for myself. I just can't! When the house is cluttered and dirty, I feel depressed--literally. What's the point of having more time for myself if I have to spend it in filth and clutter? When I go to other people's homes--people who have no trouble making this trade-off--I'm both jealous and disgusted at the same time. I'm jealous that it's so OK with them, and disgusted because I don't really want to be there long because there's no where to sit (that doesn't have to be cleared of toys and food first) and it smells of feet, dirty laundry and garbage that needs to be taken out. I can't find the middle ground, the place where I let things go just enough to have an hour a day for myself. I've tried, and all I end up doing is staying up later to do that which I put aside in the first place. This leads to my next "issue..."
- I don't get enough sleep. Wait, correction, I get almost NONE. On average, I sleep for one hours at a time, if I'm lucky three times per night (between 10 and 6 a.m.). In between I'm nursing, changing diapers, washing my hands and trying to get my baby and myself back to sleep--not an easy task on either end. I look like hell, and I'm left with not enough energy to work out even if the time pops up unexpectedly (like hubby comes home early for a change and says "Hey, I'll watch the baby, go walk on the treadmill!" Yeah, I know what you're thinking: "You have a treadmill and you STILL don't make the time? You are a loser!" I know it, I know it). Even when my baby does sleep for longer stretches (which does happen from time to time), I wake up automatically after a couple of hours leaking all over myself or in pain or just from habit. And when I have the chance to go to sleep earlier, I can't because I'm a night owl by nature (hence the name of this blog) and feel deprived of what little "me" time I have if I spend it sleeping. Yeah, only a woman would say this, but there you have it. Besides, when do you think I'm doing all this CLEANING? :-)
Issues...
- I spend too much (apparently) on groceries. I literally have NO IDEA how people can feed their families for a month on less than I spend, but I know it happens all the time. I think the problem is I want to eat very healthy. I try to buy organic dairy, meat, produce, juice and cereals. I can't stand the idea of pumping my kids full of high fructose corn syrup and trans fats, never mind hormones and preservatives. But it seems that all the "frugal" recipes and shopping lists I have found online are for meals like "Cheesy ham noodle bake" and include ingredients like Velveeta--stuff you can buy for a buck a metric ton. Shit, organic milk is $2 more per gallon than regular, and that does add up, believe me. Am I missing something? Is there a way to eat/cook these days that doesn't leave me eating chicken thighs and ground chuck, or doesn't require me to buy meat in bulk at Costco and keep it in an extra freezer in my garage (an item I do not have)? What I'm saying is, I think I "know" easy ways to save money at the grocery store or Costco, but I can't seem to reconcile these with my chosen lifestyle. Is there a middle ground here?
- I can't seem to prioritize "discretionary spending." I'm as bad as the damn government! I really really want to go on a weekend trip with my family for my 40th birthday (coming up in April--you are forewarned, if I get surly between now and then, that's why), but I also really want to keep having a mother's helper around a few hours a week and I want to buy some clothes that aren't maternity but actually fit my fat lard-ass. I can't have it all. Shit, I can't have more than one of those things at a time. And as anyone who's ever had childcare in the home knows, if you give up your babysitter for a while, you lose her--period. I've already lost two since I've been here, I'm loathe to do that again.
OK, suggest, flame, mock away!
OK, not much to say about the speech.
the BEST line of the whole thing, the one that had me standing and applauding in my own house, was:
"Hindsight is not wisdom, second-guessing is not a strategy." -- GW Bush
WAHOO! WORD! YOU GO DUBYA!
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it KerryKennedyClintonSchumerFeinsteinPelosiRangle and Co.!
Let's face it, you can't put much stock into these speeches. All they do is give you a better feeling for the man who's running the show at the moment, and last night I saw a guy I still support for the most part. I disagree with him on several issues, but admire the way he consistently refuses to lower himeslf to the sub-human level of discourse favored by his critics and enemies. He even takes it a step farther and PRAISES them in ways they do not deserve. The man is as true a Christian for this alone as for anything he's ever done, make no mistake about it. I couldn't do it, no way, but I admire the heck out of him that he can.
And the thing is, even when I don't agree with everything a President does, I need to respect and admire him, it's fundamental to my existence and piece of mind. I didn't find anything to respect or admire about Bill Clinton. In other words, I couldn't see past the Pinnocchio-nose on his face to find out if his policies were good, bad or indifferent.
With Bush, I feel like someone GOOD is in charge. He may be wrong or misguided on some points (immigration, immigration and immigration) and he may be too generous with his praise and our money (AIDS relief, Islam is a "religion of Peace," our education system is great, etc...), but on the whole, he does what he does--I think--because he thinks it's the right thing to do, not because polls tell him we think it's the right thing to do. He is, in that respect, the polar opposite of Clinton, and to me, that's a good thing.
What I'm left with then is the terror--abject terror mind you--of what will follow him if it's someone from the "dark side." If someone like Hillary were to get elected, what would be undone purely for the sake of undoing it? What "Bush" agenda items would be trashed simply because they were his? Because let's fact it folks, tax cuts, the Patriot Act, troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, talk of private investment accounts to save Social Security, refusal to sign Kyoto, and many other things we want and need in this country will disappear faster than you can say "heinous bitch" if someone like Hillary is our next President.
Are we ready for that? Let's hope not. Let's hope we get someone like Condi instead. No, let's not HOPE, let's remember last night's speech (and the Democrats' reaction to it) and let's make it happen.